Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 12:22:44 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 12:46:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >NB I didn't say that you cheated. I said that you were a creative tuner. And >then what I said next, that was the following. I showed clearly that your >roughly 30 games you reported - attention - _do not prove_ what they apparently >shouldm that Rebel Macheide were stronger than Fritz or Shredder. Period. the games prove nothing. they are data. all you do with the data is: you count it. i need no prove. i have come to my final decision long time before autoplaying. autoplaying only gives statistical material that is a prove for other people. e.g. 1/2 year later, when the style would be published and ssdf would have played their games with it, those statistical data (with the same strange openings and learning behaviour of opponents, only made by swedish people in sweden) it would come out that the style is stronger than rebel.eng default of rebel XP. i do not need to wait for them doing it. i have my own ways to find out. the stupid data you critizise and the problematic you interpret in the data i post was seen years before you ever appeared and critisized by me against the ssdf. its nothing new to me. the match have been as they have been. its part of the method that you do present the material, although the data is sometimes stupid (when a bookline is learned or programs run into strange openings). but you tried to say something different. you said that i chose the openings or the data. but i have no intention to do so. i make computerchess for fun. i do not work for anybody. i do from time to time test new programs or make styling or whatever. but i am not doing it for commercial reasons. i do this with amateur programmers too. it makes fun. when i think there is something interesting, i post it or write an article about it. i am not ed schroeders tester, as i was never chris whittingtons tester, never saiteks tester or novags tester or mark uniackes tester or or or or. i do it for my own fun. i like to study and watch and buy,try, those programs. you want to give all the things a special "tone". that somebody is biased or bought or is not working accurate. >And now folks: Thorsten agreed with me on the judgement. He said that the game >didn't prove anything. THE game is a game. THE games are the results. and the results count. thats the way ssdf measures in their rating list for years. and thats the way you can prove that your style works, your program works. the opening is not important. the autoplayer helps you not to have to play all the data manually, it is a help. and that some of the data is senseless is not a problem at all. >But then my examples (I wrote about 5 games! out of 30) showed that Thorsten did >not present his whole data but a pre-selected sample. ???? How ? How do you come to this conclusion ? Why is my data preselected. Thats not true. You claim it is. how do you know. Are you a personal witness ? Thats exactly the insult. you claim that i would pre-select or manipulate. >For instance with 3 wins >of Macheide Rebel against Shredder with the same opening blunder book line. And ? you seem to have NO experience of your own how autoplayers work. do you have 2 pc's ? that you have watched autoplayer matches ? >Now all I am saying is that this doesn't prove that the style Macheide is >anything because it can't prove it. No - all you say is that i have manipulated the data. And that i have preselected the data or whatever. And - since this is not true, in fact you can see that it is not true because of the repeated lines ! (they show BECAUSE of their appearence that it is the data that was played) - you cannot say so, without insulting me. i have complained about that. >Because Shredder was lost out of the >opening. And not due to the play of anyone as opponent. and ? what would have you done with the games. not shown them ? than you would have preselected - indeed. >Then yesterday Ed came and tried to defend his "tester". i am not his tester. i do computerchess for myself. And Ed is not the only one i worked with. I test programs that interest me. this is MY WAY of doing computerchess. what is yours ? >He wrote that everyone >could pre-arrange data. SSDF and all. exactly. and therefore the claim is nonsense. but you can never find out if somebody posts all games or only a few. thats and old point , i think it came from kaare danielsen first... >Then I showed that this wasn't possible because people would discover it. they COULD find out when they have the program and the same machines and play many many games. do you have 2 machines ? >Then "AB" explained to me that Thorsten is doing operator/program testings. ?? what does this mean ? who is AB ? you talk about chris whittington ? >Didn't interest me because we must see what Thorsten's intentions are. what are my intentions. my intentions are to post data or keep people informed when i have found a new strong program or a new style or whatever. this is what I do understand under computerchess. what i share with many others for years. this is my intention. what is wrong with this intention. >If he >wants to find a style, then this is not testing and he can do what he wants. ??? finding a style is the same as testing. because after you found the style you test if it works. >But then Thorsten is claiming now that he had posted data from tests and I had >no right to criticise him for pre-arranging the data or wahtever. right. you cannot claim that i cheat. because this offends and it is not true. >It's one thing to insult "bean-counters" (that is the majority of all testers in >CC) and to pretend to be a creative researcher/"tester" and then to claim that >the chosen very small sample of data (NB that Thorsten tested from May 2002 >until now Sept 2002 and all he had to show were 30 games!!!) this sentence shows that you have NO idea what you are talking about. the style 51 is not from my. i presented ALL the information about the styles and the dates in my rebel-diary. with the games. the century4 style had to be adapted for rebel XP. and than i made 56 versions. some versions worked. i now take the best version (51) and test it against others. this is not done in may. it is done NOW. and here is where tuning and testing comes together. i do test the style i invented. >should have the >same respect as the many data from the other normal testers. This is impostering >square *3. ??? you want to lie about what has happened and what is all in detail documented on my web page. you come here and lie about the facts. you say i had time from my to september to preselect 30 games. but thats a lie. the games have the date normally in it (depending which GUI build it). you want to confuse about the facts because you want to create a scenery. your intention is to make much hot air to show a lie that you constructed. >If I had to make my choice I would take all the "insulted as beancounter's >results" data in the world before I would believe that the 30 games from >Thorsten gave a complete overview of Thorsten's practice with Macheide. >But that is so trivial that Thorsten shoud be able to understand it. >The point of critic is not that Thorsten is doing things different to the normal >testers, i believe any tester works this way. its the logical way to test. the point is, that Thorsten doesn't show his data and he doesn't >explain either. All what he's trying to do is claiming that the thirty games >proved that Macheide was stronger than the default Rebel. i can explain what i want to explain. obviously people like you will or cannot understand what was going on. i see no need to explain anything to you. if you want to see something explained on your level, go and buy computerschach and spiele. they present data and explain it for you. >And all I did was to prove that Thorsten couldn't succeed with such unsound >data. all you did is to lie about the facts. by will. or because you are confused. you are a newbie. and newbies have no idea. i know. you are a newbie for the last 6 years. you ask questions. you never listens to the answers. and you are a newbie. you will be a newbie your whole life. >No, I can only reply this, Thorsten should learn to present data without bias. which bias ?? i make a style. than i autoplay games. i post the games. and give the link to the webpage. thats all. >When he does autoplay then he should post these games. ??? the games are on the webpages. >And not only 30 games >from May until September 2002 you don't get it. style 51 did not exist in may. why do you think it has a number that is 51, while the first styles have numbers like 02 ?? could it be that the 02 was earlier (maybe may ??) and that 51 came later ?? >and for Shredder three lost games with the >identical opening book blunder! thats not my problem. its part of the problem of the book makers or the programmers. >I take for granted that all here in CCC have seen Thorsten's cabinet with the >minimum of theree computers. So Thorsten had enough hardware to play many games >in 4 months. Many more than roughly 30! (i do not have 3 but 6 machines. and a few that are in pieces...) but this way you cannot style ! if you do always autoplay, when is the time you style ?? you change something. than you play 1 or 2 games. sometimes only a few moves. than you see: it is not working. the styling is wrong. than you change the style. or take back your change. months later it is not may but september. you have suddenly a style that is good. it wins. you play more games. than you change the opponent. you take another opponent. and now comes rolf tüschen and understands NOTHING. and instead of listening and reading how it is done, he posts megathreads claiming that i cheat or manipulate or do not present all games or whatever nonsense. this is the difference between you and me rolf. i did something for months. and i have a RESULT after all. and you post and post and post with wild allegations. and you have no other RESULT than that you insulted and lied upon facts. you see the difference. you produce gossip and throw mud. while i do computerchess. and this has not changed in the 6 years you filled the newsgroups. >But the truth is that nobody knows what Thorsten is >really doing, or what exactly he is presenting and what not. in opposite to you i don't care if anybody finds out or understands (obviously yuo understand nothing of computerchess) anything i do. because i can live very good with doing it for myself and for the programmers. They like when their programs are better in the end. i don't need to inform you, e.g. to get your applause. i can do my hobby without people like you. and so i will do. like i have done it years before and in the future. people like you do nothing and throw stones on everybody they feel the need to attack. thats IMO destroying our hobby. >But then it's a hundred times better to have the other's data, where everybody >can see what is game one in what match and of how many games. the others have the same problems with the chessbase autoplayers. and with the data. and they do only test RELEASE versions. they don't need to tune or test or interpret. >If SSDF presented such data Thorsten provided here, Thorsten would run amok. they have the same crashes and problems all other chessbase customers have. >But >since he's something better than just a bean-counter, he has the right to do >what he wants. That is what he's saying. right. i have the right to do what i want and to post what i want. especially i have the right to post PGN data. this is a computerchess forum and the only thing that is OFF-Topic here is not the PGN data i do post, but the endless "questions" of a newbie like you. >When people like me try to differentiate and reflect and ask questions, you do not ask questions because you want an answer. you ask "questions" to attack somebody for something you did not understand. as if the other is in charge that you have no idea about computerchess. but i am not in charge for your lack of knowledge. you are not differenciating. How could you. you know nothing. you don't know what hash-table swap is, you have no 2 machines, you don't know how difficult it is to get a match running with the ChessBase autoplayer device, you don't know how the programs learn lines, you don't know how programs get tested nor styles get made. and instead of asking questions you ask "questions" and attack people in this forum. Thats the way YOU work. And that is why RGCC was destroyed and CCC was build - especially for you. With ONE intention: to throw you OUT of CCC when you try again what you tried uin RGCC. and NOW you try it again here. You become the same newby you were 6 years ago. you learned nothing. because learning is not your intention but insulting and offending people !
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.